Share this story

The Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) wants to keep two under-construction reactors at the Vogtle nuclear plant alive. According to a proposal offered by Commissioner Tim Echols and unanimously supported by the rest of the PSC, the plant will allow majority-owner Georgia Power to place some of the financial burden of completing the project on rate payers (that is, utility customers).

With some incentives for completion included in the PSC’s proposal, the reactors are now anticipated to come online in 2021 and 2022.

The reactor build-out project faced cancellation this year after nuclear developer Westinghouse declared bankruptcy. Vogtle’s reactors have been delayed repeatedly (originally they were supposed to come online in 2016 and 2017) and are dramatically over budget.

Georgia Power said it would need an additional $8.9 billion to complete the project. But Toshiba, the parent company that owns Westinghouse, recently paid the owners of Vogtle a guarantee of $3.68 billion, so the Georgia PSC approved a cost request of just $7.3 billion. (Use your Toshiba money to finance the rest, was the PSC’s message.) Including financing costs, the total amount required to bring the project to completion is expected to be around $10.5 billion.

Further Reading

That will bring the total cost to build the two new Vogtle reactors to more than $25 billion. The new reactor construction was approved in 2006.

The Vogtle expansion, which will add a third and fourth reactor to two existing reactors, is about 40 percent complete, according to the Florida Times-Union. Its counterpart, the Summer nuclear expansion, also aimed to add two reactors to an existing two-reactor plant in South Carolina. But that expansion was only 35 percent complete when Westinghouse declared bankruptcy. Facing more than $11.5 billion in additional construction costs to finish, the project’s 45-percent owner, Santee Cooper, said it would walk away from the project. Summer is not expected to be completed.

Nukes vs. natural gas

The Georgia PSC’s vote to move Vogtle ahead interestingly appeared to hinge on predictions about the price of natural gas in the future. The owners of the plant expansion argued that construction should continue because the new reactors would become cost-effective if natural gas prices rose in the future. The PSC’s internal analysis suggested that natural gas prices would not rise, and thus the reactor expansion would not be economical. “Everyone agrees that both analyses depend heavily on the forecast of future natural gas prices, and we all agree we have no crystal ball on that,” wrote Commissioner Echols in his proposal. “I am not willing to trust anyone’s snapshot forecast today of future gas prices as a basis for abandoning the nearly $5 billion we have already invested in this 60 to 80-year asset.”

The go-ahead from Georgia’s PSC is not unconditional—it allows the PSC to reconsider its approval if certain nuclear tax credits are not approved. According to Utility Dive: “The tax bill Congress just passed does not extend the nuclear PTC, though Sen. Lisa Murkowski told Utility Dive they could included it in an extenders package next year.”

To ensure that these reactors stay on deadline, the PSC’s provision reduces the return on equity that Vogtle owners can collect every month after June 1, 2021 for reactor three and June 1, 2022 for reactor four.

The proposal also authorized an additional 5MW of community solar to be sited at Vogtle due to “the need to continue to develop other carbon free sources of generation.” Utilities and regulators have come to different conclusions about how best to develop carbon-free energy. In August, Duke Energy Florida decided to cancel plans to build a nuclear plant in western Florida and instead begin a 700MW expansion of solar capacity around the company’s service area.

Correction: This article originally said that upon completion, Vogtle would be the first nuclear capacity online in the US in three decades. However, the reactors are only the first to start construction in three decades. Watts-Bar began construction in the 70's and came online in 2016.

Imagine the impact of an injection of 10 billion invested in the solar industry. That would push us so far ahead, and require so little extra to maintain compared to nuclear reactors. Also creating way more jobs that cant be exported in maintaining them

That will bring the total cost to build the two new Vogtle reactors to more than $25 billion. The new reactor construction was approved in 2006.

While I am pro-nuclear. It should be called out that this was originally priced at 14 billion. So we're about 10 billion over budget so far. Source

it gets better.

To shut down the reactor and clean up the site will cost $100+ billion in 50 years.

One of the reasons they keep extending the life of nuclear plants, is that the shut down costs are many multiples of what was budgeted for shut down.

$100 billion is hyperbole. $1B is more realistic for a pair of reactors.

Quote:

The cost for decommissioning the Trojan nuclear plant (a 1130-MWe pressurized-water reactor) was estimated to be $210 million in 1993 dollars, which did not include $42 million for nonradioactive site remediation or $110 million for independent spent fuel storage installation and related fuel management. The Trojan plant planned an immediate decontamination and decommissioning from shutdown in 1993 to license termination in 2002.

$210M + $42M + $110M = $362M lets round that up to half a billion so a pair would be a billion.

A pair of 1 GW reactors with 95% capacity factor operating for 60 years will produce 1 trillion kWh. So $1B decommissioning costs would add about 0.1 cents per kWh in lifecycle costs. Still lets assume it will cost 5x as much. You are still talking a fraction of a cent per kWh.

Nuclear is expensive but there is no reason to make hyperbolic claims especially without context (a large cost over an even larger amount of energy is a small amount per unit of energy).

When looking at the costs, you have to wonder if they'll ever get their money out of it.

It's about a combined 2200MW they're going to be capable of for the two additional reactors they're putting it. If you figure that they'll get about 10c per KWH, at 2,200MWH that comes out to about $5.2M per day of income. It would take about 13 years to get the money back assuming you had no other costs.

I have to say, while I'm not sure exactly what it would cost to run a nuclear reactor, it can't be cheap. Not that I feel sorry for these guys, but the more you look at it, the better solar looks.

Find a place out in the Arizona desert somewhere. Start buying panels and building frames. Start generating power.

(yeah, I know it's not THAT simple, but it's a lot easier than planning for a potential nuclear disaster)

I have to say, while I'm not sure exactly what it would cost to run a nuclear reactor, it can't be cheap.

Most of the costs are in construction. The operating costs are somewhere in the 1.5 to 2.0 cents per kWh range. So in theory if you could build one on budget and more importantly on time it is a license to print money. The one small problem is nobody seems able to do that. The biggest problem with delays is that not only has your cost gone up but you are now capitalizing more interest because it is taking longer before you can start paying down the debt. That compounding effect is just brutal on the profitability of the plant. So instead of paying off the note in 30 years it could take 40 to 45 years.

They should rebrand as the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant and Blockchain Energy Resource Center.

What a fantastic idea. With all the power they will be generating imagine how many coins they can mine. It could offset some of the cost overruns. And being so close to the power source the energy lost in long distance transmission should help too.

Yes, these are expensive. They are first of a kind builds and didn't have the required infrastructure, so that had to be put in place as well. Build more of the same design and costs will decrease significantly. South Korean's and Chinese are proving they can build on budget and schedule. Even the Russians are getting there. The US is far behind.

These new designs are licensed for 60 years and will operate for 100 years with license renewals. Just as many of today's reactors extended theirs from 40 to 60, and many will likely extend again to 80.

Decommissioning costs are required to be recovered in the rates. We see plenty of money available for Vermont Yankee which served its design life.

Nuclear is the way to go. It is already proven. Look no further than France and Germany;

Yes, these are expensive. They are first of a kind builds and didn't have the required infrastructure, so that had to be put in place as well. Build more of the same design and costs will decrease significantly. South Korean's and Chinese are proving they can build on budget and schedule. Even the Russians are getting there. The US is far behind.

These new designs are licensed for 60 years and will operate for 100 years with license renewals. Just as many of today's reactors extended theirs from 40 to 60, and many will likely extend again to 80.

Decommissioning costs are required to be recovered in the rates. We see plenty of money available for Vermont Yankee which served its design life.

Nuclear is the way to go. It is already proven. Look no further than France and Germany;

“I am not willing to trust anyone’s snapshot forecast today of future gas prices as a basis for abandoning the nearly $5 billion we have already invested in this 60 to 80-year asset.”

...said today's subscriber to the sunk cost fallacy.

I thought that too, however, the other half of his logic is pretty good. The conventional wisdom, and forecasting, didn't expect the plunge in natural gas prices that occurred, nor that of oil. The fact we're getting some LNG exporting going is thanks to converting LNG import terminals that'd been under construction before the boom. Nat gas storage is limited, too. It's a famously volatile commodity. There's also the regulatory uncertainty; there's a lot of elections over the life cycle of a nuclear plant, and it'd be easy to destroy domestic nat gas production.

So considering a paper was done a couple years ago finding a random number generator had better forecasts of GDP than the worlds best groups of economists (in that economists are good at predicting GDP while on the upslope, but never predict recession), I think it's decent enough logic to play down the nat gas price forecasts. Having some new nuclear on board is probably a wise diversification move.

The government guarantees the manufacturer managed to get are pretty amazing.

That's because the risk associated with building these plants are enormous. Look at the German nuclear power plant operators who built plants in the 70s.

In the 80s the green party rose and nuclear power lost political support. During the past 20 years politicians have kept moving the yardstick of what constitutes a safe plant or what to do with waste. Essentially, politicians are taxing away any of the profits these companies have made with nuclear: sufficient safety essentially means "how much can I charge this provider without bankrupting them". Of course, nobody wants to build plants under these circumstances.

Imagine the impact of an injection of 10 billion invested in the solar industry. That would push us so far ahead, and require so little extra to maintain compared to nuclear reactors. Also creating way more jobs that cant be exported in maintaining them

It should be noted that Georgia Power, who is half owner of this nuclear plant, had already installed 800 MW of solar at the start of this year, and expects to add another 1.6 GW in the next few years:

The regulatory delays in Permission for construction contributes a lot to the overrun cost of these reactors:"As a result of delays by the NRC in issuing COLs for new nuclear plants, as well as increased uncertainty in cost recovery caused by recent legislative changes in Florida, Duke Energy will be terminating the EPC agreement for the proposed Levy nuclear project," a statement said. http://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsduk ... evy-county

The NRC often moves at its own pace with no obligation to complete reviews on time.

That will bring the total cost to build the two new Vogtle reactors to more than $25 billion. The new reactor construction was approved in 2006.

I'm usually pro-nuclear, but can you image how much solar and wind $25 billion could have bought? Or how far tidal generation research could have progressed (this is one tech I think may have a future).

Essentially, politicians are taxing away any of the profits these companies have made with nuclear: sufficient safety essentially means "how much can I charge this provider without bankrupting them". Of course, nobody wants to build plants under these circumstances.

Politicians are the ones guaranteeing a profit.

Did you miss the mention that this plant will not be built unless Congress reauthorizes the rate guarantees?

The local public utility boards ensure that the companies will not be financially harmed by any nuclear missteps. That is precisely what is happening in Georgia, it's what happened with Duke in Florida at multiple locations, etc.

On a national scale, it's what Perry is proposing now to prop up the nuclear and coal companies.

The way I see it, nuclear has 2 major issues that keep if from making a resurgence in the US. First, nuclear requires a large capital investment. Large enough that it only makes sense to have a very large generating station, which inherently means a significant upfront cost and a reasonably long construction time. It also means financing, which means taking on significant debt with the associated compound interest that comes with it.

Second, its all too easy for the process to be interrupted for good or bad reasons. Mostly this is political / NIMBY factors that delay the construction. This presents itself as a risk to investors... which drive up interest rates even further.

Those delays when they do occur further drive up the cost, and since the plant doesn't make money until its completed (or at least a reactor is completed) the facility goes for years without making any money... all while accruing more and more debt.

Conversely, most other electrical sources can be built more incrementally. Wind and solar are two obvious examples, and they don't require significant continual investment (i.e. fuel). Natural Gas plants are another good example, though they do carry the cost of fuel and uncertainty that comes with it.

Technical issues aren't what's killing nuclear - its the combination of economics and the political forces that result in extended project delays.

When the left complains about why we can't join the rest of the developed world and go single payer/socialized health care, we should also make he same argument about nuclear power. Since US citizens love to spend time criticizing themselves and feeling guilty about not being more like other less successful countries, we can use the same self-loathing to promote nuclear power. France and Germany do nuclear - so we should, too!

Where do you get the idea the US doesn't "do" nuclear? We have more nuclear power generation than any other country on Earth.

So ok we do nuclear can we get universal healthcare now?

BTW Germany is phasing out nuclear, France has the same construction problems with the new reactor that the US does and the second one has been put permanently on hold. The idea that the entire world is gungho about nuclear and US is just being a luddite couldn't be more wrong.

The way I see it, nuclear has 2 major issues that keep if from making a resurgence in the US. First, nuclear requires a large capital investment. Large enough that it only makes sense to have a very large generating station, which inherently means a significant upfront cost and a reasonably long construction time. It also means financing, which means taking on significant debt with the associated compound interest that comes with it.

Second, its all too easy for the process to be interrupted for good or bad reasons. Mostly this is political / NIMBY factors that delay the construction. This presents itself as a risk to investors... which drive up interest rates even further.

Those delays when they do occur further drive up the cost, and since the plant doesn't make money until its completed (or at least a reactor is completed) the facility goes for years without making any money... all while accruing more and more debt.

Conversely, most other electrical sources can be built more incrementally. Wind and solar are two obvious examples, and they don't require significant continual investment (i.e. fuel). Natural Gas plants are another good example, though they do carry the cost of fuel and uncertainty that comes with it.

Technical issues aren't what's killing nuclear - its the combination of economics and the political forces that result in extended project delays.

It is just economics. There are no political forces at play. The Georgia reactors are being built on a site which already has two reactors and is approved for up to 6. The project has overwhelming support from the local population. There have been no court mandated construction halts. The NRC has a new streamlined licensing process which seems to be working well.

Of course none of that matters if you can't build the damn thing on time and on budget.

That will bring the total cost to build the two new Vogtle reactors to more than $25 billion. The new reactor construction was approved in 2006.

While I am pro-nuclear. It should be called out that this was originally priced at 14 billion. So we're about 10 billion over budget so far. Source

it gets better.

To shut down the reactor and clean up the site will cost $100+ billion in 50 years.

One of the reasons they keep extending the life of nuclear plants, is that the shut down costs are many multiples of what was budgeted for shut down.

$100 billion is hyperbole. $1B is more realistic for a pair of reactors.

Quote:

The cost for decommissioning the Trojan nuclear plant (a 1130-MWe pressurized-water reactor) was estimated to be $210 million in 1993 dollars, which did not include $42 million for nonradioactive site remediation or $110 million for independent spent fuel storage installation and related fuel management. The Trojan plant planned an immediate decontamination and decommissioning from shutdown in 1993 to license termination in 2002.

$210M + $42M + $110M = $362M lets round that up to half a billion so a pair would be a billion.

A pair of 1 GW reactors with 95% capacity factor operating for 60 years will produce 1 trillion kWh. So $1B decommissioning costs would add about 0.1 cents per kWh in lifecycle costs. Still lets assume it will cost 5x as much. You are still talking a fraction of a cent per kWh.

Nuclear is expensive but there is no reason to make hyperbolic claims especially without context (a large cost over an even larger amount of energy is a small amount per unit of energy).

if it costs $25 billion to build it will cost 4 times that to disassemble it safely. remember it goes together clean. it will come apart in radioactive pieces that are clean today.

look at the article $25 BILLION to build. your numbers are way way off

You do get that the vast majority of a nuclear power plant isn't radioactive right? It isn't just some giant 50,000 ton ball of radioactive waste. There is a reason they put reactors in SAFSTOR for a decade or more. It gives you plenty of time for short lived half lives to burn off. By the time you get to the actual decommissioning of the nuclear island the only thing radioactive will be the reactor pressure vessel which is maybe 0.1% of the total mass of the plant.

My numbers are from the NRC. Your numbers are just nonsense you made up. If decommissioning a nuclear reactor costs $100B then please provide a cite to an actual nuclear reactor with a $100B decommissioning cost.

Here is my datapoint. Yankee Rowe has been completely decommissioned and dismantled. The entire site returned to greenfield status and open to the public. It is a single reactor plant (916 MWe) and had a total cost from start to finish of $608M. The fuel is still currently in dry storage on site (because we have no repository) and $8M a year is devoted to secure that as well as provide ongoing monitoring of the site.

I love nuclear power. I am generally skeptical of what i consider climate alarmism (since it has always existed in various forms for my entire life), I immediately listen to and respect folks that are pro-nuclear regardless of any political leanings.

.......

Since US citizens love to spend time criticizing themselves and feeling guilty about not being more like other less successful countries, we can use the same self-loathing to promote nuclear power. France and Germany do nuclear - so we should, too!

What on earth are you talking about? Germany is shutting down their plants. France is having to shut down plants because of a massive coverup from a steel maker Le Creusot Forge. Good luck getting license extensions with a bunch of forged paperwork from decades ago.

Germany's renewable energy targets are 35% by 2020, 50% by 2030 and 80% by 2050.

That will bring the total cost to build the two new Vogtle reactors to more than $25 billion. The new reactor construction was approved in 2006.

While I am pro-nuclear. It should be called out that this was originally priced at 14 billion. So we're about 10 billion over budget so far. Source

And unit 3 was supposed to be active starting last year and unit 4 this year.But, now 2022.Anyone want to take bets that 2022 will come and go and no electrons will be generated from 3 & 4?

I dont know about that. waxing political for a moment. Trump is pro-nuclear and all about killing some regulations. So it might actually make headway compared to Obama and his... they can try to build a coal plant, they'll go bankrupt doing it... view of energy. Not saying if that is a good or bad thing but it is definitely a different political climate.

We are still building coal CAPACITY. New plants? No. Making existing plants bigger? Oh Yes. Even during the Obama years when coal was under "attack", there were only 2 states (CA and AZ) that actually build more solar than new coal capacity.

Yes, these are expensive. They are first of a kind builds and didn't have the required infrastructure, so that had to be put in place as well. Build more of the same design and costs will decrease significantly. South Korean's and Chinese are proving they can build on budget and schedule. Even the Russians are getting there. The US is far behind.

These new designs are licensed for 60 years and will operate for 100 years with license renewals. Just as many of today's reactors extended theirs from 40 to 60, and many will likely extend again to 80.

Decommissioning costs are required to be recovered in the rates. We see plenty of money available for Vermont Yankee which served its design life.

Nuclear is the way to go. It is already proven. Look no further than France and Germany;

Yes, these are expensive. They are first of a kind builds and didn't have the required infrastructure, so that had to be put in place as well. Build more of the same design and costs will decrease significantly. South Korean's and Chinese are proving they can build on budget and schedule. Even the Russians are getting there. The US is far behind.

These new designs are licensed for 60 years and will operate for 100 years with license renewals. Just as many of today's reactors extended theirs from 40 to 60, and many will likely extend again to 80.

Decommissioning costs are required to be recovered in the rates. We see plenty of money available for Vermont Yankee which served its design life.

Nuclear is the way to go. It is already proven. Look no further than France and Germany;

"In the 2015-2016 period, the highest export balances of ENTSO-E countries were seen in France (+65 TWh) and Germany (+52 TWh). Italy was the biggest importer (46 TWh), followed by the United Kingdom (21 TWh). Data calculated for the July 2015 to June 2016 period relative to previous 12 months"